I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.
Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.
Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.
I don't entirely disagree, but there is an irony that somebody called "Jacobin" is saying this.
